Back in 1984, Los Angeles was the only city to step up and
bid to host the Olympics, despite Montreal and Lake Placid plunging into debt
from hosting the games in prior years.
Los Angeles decided to rely on private investment and corporate
sponsorship to fund the events rather than state finances and became the first
city to profit from hosting the Olympics since 1932. Seoul announced a profit in 1988 from hosting
the Olympics, but excluded $1.5 billion in government spending on stadiums,
transportation, roads, and other facilities, causing Seoul to nearly break
even.
More than 30 years later, the city of Los Angeles is faced
with a similar proposition. The city has
considered using sponsorship, broadcast rights, and merchandising for
addressing the expenses. However, the
city has designed a contingency budget of a little under half a billion
dollars. If the Olympic Games exceed the
budget, which has been a common occurrence with large events, then the city
would have to cover unpaid debts. One
problem with this tactic is that private industry tends to reap the benefits of
the plan whereas the risk and responsibility is shifted to the state.
The big question is why does Los Angeles believe that they
can do it despite past hosts going into debt or barely breaking even? The city expects to do it cheap since a lot
of the significant infrastructure already exists. In an article from time.com, the author
writes that if the summer Olympics’ most recent past is anything to go by, Los
Angeles’s proposal seems about as bulletproof as an Olympic plan can get, which
might not be saying much.
The fact that LA already has a fair amount of infrastructure is a good start. The issue with hosting something like the Olympics is that there is always the chance that the facilities need to be "better" or more new. Personally, seeing LA dig into their own pocket to fund this venture would not be surprising at all. From a publicity standpoint, this could be very beneficial and would be a special event for the city. Economically, the city could lose money in order to cover the costs. On the contrary, they would get extreme tourism during that time and could really help local businesses. To finish, having the Olympics in that States could give a small boost to the economy, but the large businesses (airlines, sponsors, etc) will be the only ones seeing the true return.
ReplyDeleteOverall,I think this could be very beneficial for the city. Although it could lead to debt, as seen in past Olympics, I think it will not hurt LA in the long run considering they have great infrastructure as Antonio said. They also have a relatively stable economy with many different resources to help fund the Olympics such as different sports teams and many different big cities.
ReplyDeleteHosting the Olympic games could be good and bad for LA. LA is already a very densely populated city and bringing the olympics to LA could make for a very crowded and way over populated city for the people who live there trying to carryout their daily lives. Although it would allow for many US citizens to experience the Olympic Games right in their own back yard. The risk of breaking even would be something LA would have to a choice they make. Private businesses would benefit very much from hosting the Olympics, but would the city or state benefit enough to make hosting worth it?
ReplyDeleteThere are many positives and some negatives for LA if they decide to host the olympics. First, LA is a city that has lots of publicity and lots of infrastructure. Also, the city has some sports facilities already because of the local sports teams (Rams, Dodgers, Angles, Clippers, Lakers, Galaxy, etc.). So, unlike other potential host cities, LA would not have to worry about building as many new stadiums and sports facilities. However, LA may lose a little money overall during the event because that tends to happen to the host cities of these big sporting events. Although, hosting the Olympics could boost other aspects of the US economy. For example, businesses in LA get publicity from all of the tourists coming to see the games. Overall, I think it would be good for the city of LA to host the Olympics.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that LA has existing infrastructure from previous Olympic games shows that they will likely pull off hosting the games while turning a profit. I say this because host countries pump billions of dollars into the games, and then as soon as the games end, the facilities are abandoned. However, LA has been able to keep some of the facilities alive, reducing costs. Honestly, if any city can pull off a profitable event, it would be LA. Even if LA is not profitable, different aspects of the US economy will be positively impacted like Antonio mentioned above. One thing that worries me about the LA games is population being so high. Not only will traffic be an absolute nightmare with the additional tourism surge, but it also poses as a security threat.
ReplyDeleteAs almost everyone has already mentioned, LA clearly already has the infrastructure to host the olympic games. As Drew G. said, many host cities build new facilities to host the games and then abandon them, since LA already has facilities to use, this wouldn't be the case, saving them a ton of money. With LA already being a huge touristy place, hosting the games can only make it better. I think that LA has a high chance of being profitable from hosting the games.
ReplyDelete